2

 b. Navy Proposal for Transaction Exchange Supporting Directed Returns - 

Product Quality Discrepancy Report (PQDR), Supply Discrepancy Report (SDR) 

Transportation Discrepancy Report (TDR) and Retrograde. Mr. Louis Koplin, NAVICP, 

briefed the committee on draft PDC 331 which proposes modification of DLMS 

Supplement180M, 870M and 856R to identify a reason for directed material returns. These 

returns include the DoD Material Returns Program, Navy Depot Level Repairable Exchange, 

discrepant material being returned via the PQDR, SDR and TDR programs. Ms. Hilert 

emphasized that this proposal should be viewed as a DoD wide process not just Navy unique and 

requested that the Navy rewrite the PDC to include additional details and functional procedures 

so that all Components can evaluate for applicability. ACTION: NAVY enhance PDC 331 to 

provide additional details and functional procedures. A DLMSO/Navy meeting to discuss the 

business process in greater detail is scheduled for January 2009. 

 c. DoD Activity Address Directory (DoDAAD)/Military Activity Address 

Directory Re-engineering 

 (1) Approved DLMS Change (ADC) 298 was issued on September 16, 

2008. The change documents proposed procedures applicable to the reengineered DODAAD; 

added new fields to the DAASINQ; enhanced the inquiry; established DoD policy that requires 

deploying units to have current DoDAAC information prior to deployment; and expands the 

capability of the web update page. The ADC did not revise business rules associated with 

assignment/applicability of multiple contract numbers for a specified contractor-series DoDAAC 

due to a lack of consensus among the Components. This issue has been referred to the 

DODAAD PRC for further analysis.

 (2) PDC 324 Country Codes in the DODAAD. Mr. Dale Yeakel, 

DLMSO, provided an overview of the Country Code Table. The table contains five different 

country and activity code fields used in various ways by different Components: International 

Standards Office (ISO) two digits, ISO three digits, Federal Information Processing Standard 

(FIPS) (maintained by National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), MILSTRIP, and 

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) (a subset of MILSTRIP codes prescribed for use by Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency). For several years now there has been a desire on the part of DoD 

to settle on the use of a single country code standard. While no standard country code standard 

has yet become DoD policy there has been a leaning toward the ISO country code standard. The 

matrix used to populate/identify the physical country in the DoDAAD (also designed for use in 

the MAPAD re-engineering effort) displays a cross-walk of all available codes. The ISO2 is the 

anchor or key for the table. Because of it is the anchor, under the current rules, the ISO2 field 

will always be populated, even if DLMSO must assign a pseudo code value. Pseudo ISO2 codes 

are flagged in the Country Code Table. The purpose of PDC 325 is to prevent selection of noncounties (i.e., FMS activity codes which are representative of an FMS case/programs) when 

creating physical addresses associated with DoDAACs in the DoDAAD. ACTION: The 

continuing need for and use of pseudo ISO2 country codes for actual countries is currently under 

review within DLMSO and options are being examined. Any changes to the basic use of and 

composition of the DODAAD Country Code Table will be coordinated though DLMS 

PDC/ADC.
3

 d. Customer and Ship-to Identification via EMALL and GSA Internet 

Ordering. BACKGROUND: DLMSO and DLA HQ previously requested business rule 

changes within DoD EMALL that would require use of a requisitioner DoDAAC (specific to 

each customer) to replace the use of the generic EMALL DoDAACs. A partial solution will be 

implemented in February 2009, to prohibit the use of the EMALL DoDAAC (SP5200) as the 

requisitioning DODAAC for on-line ordering by contractors. However, the SP5200, EMALL 

DoDAAC can still be used by Government customers using credit/purchase cards. Ms. Hilert 

advocated that EMALL should prohibit the use of SP5200 for customers ordering from DoD 

supply sources, to include state and local government personnel. Mr. Vitko, Contractor Support 

DLMSO, suggested that DAASC could implement an edit that would reject the requisition. Mr. 

Garvey, GSA, agreed that customers should use a valid Activity Address Code (AAC) or 

DoDAAC when ordering on-line from GSA. Mr. Bruce Propert from the OSD Project 

Management Office for Purchase Cards indicated that DoD policy requires the ability to 

determine which specific activities are buying material with purchase cards, which would require 

the use of their own DODAAC. This policy is reflected in the current DoD Authorization Act 

and recent GAO reports. Currently, Air Force requires that all their activities use an Air Force 

generic EMALL DoDAAC (FA4440) when ordering from EMALL, which presents the same 

problem of not being able to determine the activity that actually placed the order. Mr. Vitko said 

that the original reason the Air Force used this DoDAAC was to allow customers to order 

material and have it delivered directly to their office rather than being shipped to central 

receiving, where in many cases the material was lost. Ms. Hilert indicated that that she would 

arrange a phone call with the Air Force and Mr. Propert to discuss changes in Air Force policy. 

She also requested a DLMS change proposal from EMALL that addresses the procedures for 

using SP5200. Ms. Hilert also expressed concern about the use of clear text addressing for 

internet ordering. Although DoD EMALL was previously authorized the use of clear text 

addressing for purchase card customers (ADC 59), the use of a DoDAAC is an essential element 

for Military Shipping Labels and lack of a ship-to DoDAAC has proved problematic when these 

orders flow into the Defense Transportation System. The transportation and tracking issues 

caused Ms. Hilert to turn down a request from GSA for authorization to use clear text addressing 

for their internet order. Ms. Hilert recommended that restrictions be considered for continued 

DoD EMALL use of exception addressing. Ms. Heidi Daverede, DLMSO, indicated she had 

information on a study directed by OSD-TP to analyze frustrated freight at the DLA CCPs and 

TRANSCOM ports. Subsequent to the meeting these briefings were posted to the DLMSO web 

site and are available as a link to the Supply PRC agenda. ACTION: DLMSO requests 

specific input from OSD DPAP/BTA and/or USTRANSCOM to support proper 

interpretation of interpretation of policy regarding use of DoDAACs for customer and 

ship-to locations in internet ordering. EMALL: Provide a proposed DLMS change outlining 

procedures for restricted use of SP5200. EMALL and USAF: Ms. Hilert requested that both 

DLIS and Air Force review the actual text addresses for both SP5200 and FA4440 in the 

DODAAF and update the wording to clarify that both are for restricted for EMALL purchase 

card orders. 

 e. Management Control Activity (MCA) Procedures. Each Component was 

requested to provide a briefing of their implementation of the policy contained in DoD 4140.1-R, 

Chapter 5, paragraph C5.11, Control of Access to DoD Materiel Inventories required by Defense 

Contracts. The DoD policy and procedures require the Components establish MCA to control the 
4

access to DoD supply system material in accordance with the terms of the contracts that allow 

access. The briefing was to identify each MCA; provide a copy or link for the Component 

implementing procedures; identify the information systems used to implement the controls 

prescribed by DoD policy; provide a flow diagram describing the control process; identify the 

activities and the automated system that generates the Government Furnished Material (GFM) 

Status Report (DD Form 2543); identify the automated system maintaining the required 

transaction histories and identify any changes in the process due to system modernization. In a 

related discussion, Ms. Hilert discussed DoD requirements that contractor access to DoD supply 

sources be controlled. This includes Contractor Furnished Material (CFM) (contractor paid) to 

ensure that the contractor’s purchase is associated with a DoD contract. The Army has 

identified standard procedures for validating Contractor Furnished Material (CFM) requisitions 

under MILSTRIP Chapter 11. However no other Components have furnished similar 

procedures. ACTION: ALL COMPONENTS EXCEPT ARMY provide procedures for the 

management controls over CFM purchases. 

 (1) NAVY. Ms. Barbara Willier, NAVSUP, briefed the committee on the 

Navy implementation of MCA Procedures. A flow diagram was provided for the process as it 

will be when the Navy ERP is implemented. However, more detail is required to determine if 

adequate controls will be in place to comply with DoD policy ACTION: Navy provide addition 

details on the Navy implementation of the MCA Procedures. SUBSEQUENT to the meeting, 

addition information on Navy MCA procedures was provided and is under review. 

 (2) Air Force. Ms. Bobbie Ziolek, GLSC, provided a briefing on the Air 

Force implementation of the MCA procedures. Ms. Ziolek outlined the process as it exists in the 

legacy systems and indicated that there are two distinct Management Control Activities in the 

Air Force. The Special Support Stock Control (SSSC) System (D035D) handles both production 

and Contract Depot Maintenance Activity Group repair contractor GFM/loan/lease and Contract 

Depot Maintenance repair contractor loan/lease orders. The web-enabled Commercial Asset 

Visibility (CAV II) handles MCA validation for CDM repair contractor GFM orders. SSSC is 

tentatively scheduled to be subsumed by the Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS) no 

earlier than calendar year 2012. CAVII is tentatively scheduled to be subsumed by ECSS no 

earlier than calendar year 2011. Ms. Hilert asked if the process will be re-engineered when the 

Air Force ERPs are implemented and if CAV/AF will replace CAV II or if they are separate 

processes. ACTION: Air Force provide requested information. 

 (3) Army. Ms. Judy Loncaric, LAISO, briefed the Committee on the 

Army implementation of the MCA procedures. Ms. Loncaric provided details of how the MCA 

works with the legacy system. Some of this functionality is scheduled for implementation in 

LMP in November 2008, however the required GFM Status Report will not be produced by LMP 

under current design. Ms. Hilert indicated that more details are required from the Army on how 

the MCA process will work in LMP. ACTION: ARMY provide addition details on how the 

MCA process will work in LMP. 

 

 (4) Marine Corps. Ms. Marsha Ford, Marine Corps Logistics Base 

Albany, discussed the Marine Corps MCA process. She indicated that the MCA process in the 

Marine Corps is manual. She also said that the GFM Status Report is prepared manually, but is 
5

not sent to anyone. Ms. Hilert requested addition written detail on the process. ACTION: 

MARINE CORPS provide detailed procedures on the MCA process. 

 (5) DLA. Ms. Dannette White, DLA, briefed that with the 

implementation of Enterprise Business System (EBS) DLA no longer has an MCA for internal 

DLA contracts. The standard SAP Subcontracting Purchase Order functionality is used in EBS 

to support these contracts/purchase orders that require DLA material to be pushed to the 

contractor as GFM. Under this process no requisitions are involved. A delivery is generated 

directly against the DLA contract/purchase order or a release order is generated against stocked 

material. The material is shipped to the vendor, but remains on EBS records in a category 

described as Stock Provided to Vendor. Requisitions submitted to DLA that support external 

Service-managed contracts remain subject to MCA validation for that Service. Ms. Hilert 

indicated that DLA should document this change in the MCA process in a PDC. ACTION: 

DLA provide PDC to document the DLA “push” business process. [Subsequent to the meeting a 

rough PDC was provided but contained insufficient documentation for staffing and update of 

MILSTRIP/DLMS.] DLA was asked to verify capability to perform MCA validation for DLA 

contractor-initiated requisitions (appears to be a gap for pull vs. push supply action). DLA must 

provide a PDC for identification of SD-series DoDAACs as contractors. Improper use of the 

Service Assignment Code “S” does not permit proper identification of a contractor DoDAAC 

and requisitions would subsequently bypass Component MCA edits. 

 f. Transmission of Exception Requisitions. This discussion involved the 

routing rules DAASC currently uses for exception requisitions. There is some confusion as 

which rules applies to each Component. DLA wants exception requisitions to be routed by 

DAASC the same way as normal requisitions, i.e., to the source of supply (SoS). However, this 

cannot be done if the exception is for extended part numbered items since routing is based upon 

the SoS for the NSN. The Army has requested unique rules that exception requisitions without 

expanded content for exception data (e.g. Document Identifier YRZ) to be routed to the SoS, 

however those with exception data should be rejected. The Navy prefers that all requisitions be 

passed to the identified Routing Identifier rather than routed to the SoS. After discussion it was 

determined that in the absence of Component rules, DAASC will attempt to route exception 

requisitions (or pass if not NSN), but will follow Component guidance as requested. ACTION: 

ALL COMPONENTS provide/confirm desired rules for processing exception requisitions. 

 g. Material Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA). Ms. Johnson advised that

DLMSO has completed analysis of the MRA Reports as confirmed to the Supply PRC 

representatives in an e-mail dated July 25, 2008. The reports currently available on the DAASC 

website for SPRC representative use are: MRA 01, MRA Summary Report; MRA 02, MRA NonResponse Report and MRA 05, MRA Greater than 500 Non-Response Report. A live on-line 

demonstration using the Marine Corps data was provided. DLMSO has also identified additional 

changes/enhancements which we would like DAASC to consider. DLMSO will formally provide 

those recommendations to DAASC in November. The recommendations include a general 

restructuring of the Summary Report to include counts, dollar value and percentages of total 

shipments both with and without MRAs. We will also request collection and display of data by the 

ship-to DODAAC, not the Service of the requisitioning DODAAC, with the only exception being 

if the ship-to DODAAC was a DSS depot. DLMSO will ask that an ad hoc query capability be 
6

explored, and if feasible, DLMSO may request that the special reports developed for categories 

such as ammunition, medical, and Army Total Package Fielding, be deleted in favor of using ad 

hoc query. Other areas to be included in our discussions with DAASC will include 

collection/display of data under invalid and/or deleted DODAACS, along with discussions 

regarding the method used to determine CONUS/OCONUS designations. 

 ACTION: DLMSO formalize request to modify/enhance on-line Material Receipt 

Acknowledgement Reports and forward to DAASC in November 2008 for assessment. 

[Subsequent to the meeting, DLMSO emailed DAASC the recommended MRA Report 

revisions/enhancements on November 13, 2008 for review, and met with DAASC to discuss the 

changes on November 20, 2008.] 

 ACTION: All Components were asked to document and forward to DLMSO by 

November 7th, 2008, any problems encountered with using the on-line MRA Reports, as well as 

any desired enhancements. [No responses were received.] 

 ACTION: All Components were asked to identify by November 7th, 2008, how 

MILSTRAP DI Code DRA/DRB record position (rp) 7 is used by your Service for U.S. forces 

shipments. This information is critical for DAASC to map data to the DLMS 527R MRA. This is 

especially important if rp 7 is being used for something other than a partial or split shipment code. 

The DRA/DRB transactions are being converted to DLMS 527R for DLA EBS and Army Logistics 

Modernization Program (LMP). Currently DAASC mapping defaults to split or partial shipment 

indicator code in 2/N901-02/090, for entries in rp 7 for U.S. forces shipments, based on the 

MILSTRAP rp 7 guidance which states: "For security assistance shipments, enter the applicable 

mode of shipment, if available; otherwise, leave blank. For U.S. forces shipments, enter data 

prescribed by the Component (e.g., code for controlling receipt of partial or split quantities)." 

 ACTION: All Components Assure that use of the transportation control number (TCN) 

in DS 527R, as approved by ADC 247, is being incorporated in the DLMS MRA and retail 

receipt transactions in your modernized systems. ADC 247 is available at: http://www.dla.mil/j6/dlmso/eLibrary/Changes/approved3.asp. 

 ACTION: DLA provide information regarding the ability of EBS to provide MRAs for 

contractors receiving Government Furnished Material (GFM). The DLA Management Control 

Activity which used to submit these MRAs has been replaced in EBS with the Subcontracting 

Purchase Order functionality. During the MRA report review, it appeared that the generation of 

these MRAs may not have been included as part of the EBS functionality. If the GFM MRAs 

are not being provided by EBS, indicate when EBS will be changed to accommodate this 

requirement. 

 h. Monitoring for Requisition Priority Abuse 

 (1) Ms. Hilert provided the committee with a demonstration of the 

Logistics Reports on the DAASC Web that allow the Components to monitor their activities for 

requisition priority abuse. Ms. Hilert emphasized that all Components should be looking at these 

reports periodically to monitor those activities that are assigning requisition Priority Designators 

that they are not authorized to assign and take corrective actions as appropriate. The Joint Staff 

representative for this functional area was unable to participate in the SPRC meeting as planned. 

The Services requested names of their points of contact working with the Joint Staff on FA/D 

assignment. ACTION: DLMSO to request Joint Staff Service contacts. All Components 

are to continue to monitor the DAAS reports and evaluate viability of a Service-based DAAS 
7

downgrade of unauthorized F/AD I requisitions for discussion at the next SPRC meeting. 

During the report review, it was noted that some of the totals appeared to be out of sync; 

DAASC was requested to investigate. 

 (2) ADC 279, Automated Downgrade for Priority Abuse and Reporting 

Procedures. This change established procedures for GSA compliance with MILSTRIP business rules 

for requisition priority validation for Force or Activity Designator (F/AD) I activities on requisitions 

submitted directly to GSA for purchase of GSA managed item. This change removed the PD 01 

exclusion from automatic downgrading for selected requisitions which do not identify authorized 

DODAACs and are originated via internet using GSA Advantage/Global or DoD EMALL. STATUS: 

Pending development of procedures for identifying the F/AD I authorized units within the requisition, 

Air Force Requisitions with PD 01 continue to be excluded from the expanded edits. Discussions with 

the AF are underway and this exclusion is considered temporary. The DAASC portion of ADC 279 has 

been implemented. GSA is working on their systems changes and will coordinate with DAASC for the 

testing/implementation. ACTION: The Joint Staff will pursue discussion of methodology used for Air 

Force F/AD assignment as it impacts monitoring of F/AD usage in requisitions. 

 i. Pre-Positioning of Project Codes for Disaster Relief. DLA J-3 suggested the 

Committee explore the establishment of a pipeline of project codes that can be used by DLA and 

all the Services to track actions related to disaster relief using the same project code. Ms. Hilert 

indicated she has discussed this with the Joint Staff and they do not object to assisting with the 

dissemination of MILSTRIP Category C project codes once assigned for this purpose. There are 

procedural issues which would need further clarification. A significant volume of new Category 

C project codes could quickly use up the allowable project code values, so a determination would 

be required to identify which disaster relief scenarios need to be tracked by project code and 

trigger the MILSTRIP assignment. DLA is encouraged to document requirements in a PDC. 

ACTION: DLA J-3 develop PDC 

 j. Procedures for Requesting Coordinated Implementation Dates for 

Approved DLMS Changes. The process for establishing implementation dates for approved 

DLMS changes with the Components is normally done after resolution of the comments on 

PDCs with a letter from DLMSO requesting a preferred implementation date. DLMSO would 

then announce a DOD implementation date through dissemination of an ADC. For the past few 

years DLMSO has gotten away from this process because many of the Components were in the 

process of developing ERPs, were unable to provide projected implementation dates, and were 

not making changes in legacy systems. Since some of the Components have now implemented 

their ERPs, it was determined that coordinating the implementation dates has again become an 

important planning tool to assist in implementing changes. It was agreed that DLMSO would 

provide in PDCs an assessment of the required implementation strategy and request Component 

input on strategy and an implementation timeline. Based on comments received, DLMSO would 

then provide, where possible, a coordinated implementation date in the ADC. 

 k. Status of WAWF for Direct Vendor Delivery Receipt Acceptance. Ms. 

Beth Altman, DLA, provided the committee with a briefing on the status of WAWF for Prime 

Vendor/Direct Vendor Delivery (PV/DVD) receipt acceptance. Ms. Altman said that DFARS 

252.232.7003 clause mandates the use of WAWF for invoice, acceptance and/or documentation 
8

to make payments to vendors. Problems have surfaced in obtaining formal acceptance for items 

delivered under PV/DVDs directly to a customer, rather than DLA depot. A memorandum from 

the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (AT&L) has indicated that this is a failure to 

comply with the provisions of the Financial Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 32.905. The 

memorandum directed all Services and DLA investigate their current processes and procedures 

for compliance with the requirements for the use of WAWF and work together to establish 

acceptance procedures for DLA originated PV/DVD contracts where the Services are the direct 

recipients of the material. In addition, all Services and DLA are required to provide a report on 

any issues and the corrective actions planned to address those issues. There was a discussion on 

how customers know if destination acceptance is required. Ms. Hilert suggested that DLA 

should submit a change proposal for a new status code that would indicate to a customer that 

destination acceptance is required (as a variation of the current status code the only notifies the 

customer that the material is to be supplied as a DVD). There was also a discussion on an OSD 

proposal to have payment to vendors made as a result of the Materiel Receipt Acknowledge 

(MRA) provided by the customer’s AIS to the SoS. However there would still be a gap as 

Services are not providing MRAs 100% of the time. Ms. Johnson indicated that use of the MRA 

as a formal acceptance report would require a redefinition of retail receipt processing 

requirements [Subsequent to the meeting, Ms. Kathy Smith, OSD-ATL, held a meeting with the 

Services and DLA to discuss compliance with the FAR and alternatives to allow compliance. In 

addition, Ms. Smith will host a Tri-Domain Meeting on December 11, 2008, to include logistics, 

finance and acquisition to further explore solutions for compliance.] 

 l. DLMS Migration/Implementation Status 

 (1) Metrics. Mr. Dale Yeakel, DLMSO, provided an overview of the 

DLMS migration metrics as originally adopted under the Jump Start Program. This is a Business 

Transformation Agency (BTA) sponsored program to motivate and assist Components to migrate 

to DLMS. Mr. Yeakel provided a briefing with current metrics used to track conversion for the 

MILS (80 card column transaction formats) to DLMS (variable length transactions formats). 

The September 2008 numbers reflect that of all transactions in and out of DAASC, 67% are 

MILS and 33% DLMS. The recent of addition of DLMS transactions under USTRANSCOM 

oversight has had a positive impact on the overall metrics. The BTA’s goal is to be at 80% 

DLMS compliant by 2015, which the Services appear to be on track to accomplish. 

 (2) Global Combat Support System (GCSS) Army. The SPRC 

meeting regularly requests feedback from the Components on the status of DLMS 

implementation initiatives. An update on GCSS-Army development from a DLMS perspective 

was requested. ACTION: Provide a briefing at the next Supply PRC Meeting on the status of 

GCSS development with focus on DLMS interfaces and enhancement capability. 

 m. DLMS changes recently approved, in staffing or under development, or 

old Requests for Implementation Dates needing a fresh look. 

 (1) Revised Request for Implementation Date (RFID) for Joint 

Approved MILS Changes AMCL 5, (MILSTRAP) and 13 (MILSTRIP), Date 

Packed/Expiration Date for Subsistence Items. This change, which was approved in 1989 
9

provides for accountability and asset stratification of subsistence materiel by date 

packed/expiration date within supply condition code. The change added the date packed 

definition to MILSTRAP and revised formats to incorporate the three position date 

packed/expiration date field for subsistence items in the applicable MILSTRAP/MILSTRIP 

transactions. The request for an implementation date is on hold pending DLA validation of the 

requirement. ACTION: DLA provide updated status on the approved change and request 

withdrawal of the change if now considered obsolete. 

 (2) ADC 282, Consolidation and Containerization (CCP)-Originated 

SDRs including Noncompliant Wood Packaging Material (WPM) Procedures with Cost 

Breakdown and New Procedures for Closing WPM and Passive RFID SDRs. This change 

supports generation of SDRs at the CCPs that involve shipments using noncompliant WPM. 

Status: Due to a disconnect in implementation planning between the Defense Distribution 

Center (DDC) and DLA HQ, the Distribution Standard System (DSS) implementation preceded 

DLA EBS capability to process these SDRs. ACTION: DLMSO working with DAASC to 

develop business rules to block transmission to applications that cannot process the transactions. 

DLA is to improve internal coordination of implementation dates. 

 (3) PDC 289, Revisions to Security Assistance Program, Procedures, 

Modification of the Definition of the Security Assistance Type of Assistance and Financing 

Codes and Policy Change to Billing Procedures. This change is still open pending 

consolidation of Component feedback. ACTION: Components are encouraged to provide any 

additional updates needed for the re-issuance of the MILSTRIP chapter supporting Security 

Assistance procedures. 

 (4) PDC 294, Security Assistance (SA) Use of DoD Electronic Mall 

(EMALL). This change is to allow FMS customers to access, query and order material through 

DoD EMALL. STATUS: Portions of this change are being piloted with the Navy. The DLA J3 International Programs office is consolidating all comments received from the Components and 

finalizing the documentation for publication of approved procedures within MILSTRIP/DLMS. 

The completion of the change requires identification of a unique routing identifier code (RIC) to 

recognize interim in-process requisitions prepared via EMALL. The Services declined to 

establish Service-specific RICs for this purpose; however, DLA has now agreed to create a 

process-specific RIC for all Services to use. Completion of the ADC is anticipated by the end of 

the year. 

 (5) PDC 307, DLMS Lateral Redistribution Order Shipment Status 

(DLMS 856S/MILSTRIP AS6) and Party to Receive Credit. This proposed change corrects a 

disconnect between DLMS documentation and DAAS to properly identify the party to receive 

credit and the transaction originator when the shipment status is provided as lateral redistribution 

order (LRO) status. This changes also requests confirmation of planned DLMS enhancement to 

separately identify different parties to receive credit for material and packing, crating, handling 

and transportation (PCH&T). ACTION: ALL COMPONENTS are specifically requested to 

indicate if the DLMS enhancement to separately identify different parties to receive credit for 

material and PCH&T is desired as a future enhancement. Components must consider both 

customer and SoS perspective in their responses. 
10

 (6) ADC 303, Transportation Identification Numbers in Wide Area 

Workflow (WAWF). This approved change modifies WAWF to correctly handle transportation 

identification numbers and carrier identification codes. It is required to make the Transportation 

Control Number (TCN) data field in WAWF compliant with DoD business rules and enhance the 

visibility of secondary transportation identification numbers and carrier identification. The 

existing data field for bill of lading (BL) number is modified to allow proper identification of the 

type of BL (Commercial versus Government). STATUS: Funded for WAWF implementation 

in Release 4.1. 

 (7) Draft PDC 312, DLMS New Procedures for Material Returns 

from Deployed Maintenance Units under BRAC. This draft PDC, submitted by DLA, 

proposes to allow identification of deployed maintenance unit turn-ins from other maintenance 

turn-ins between the DSS and EBS and to establish new procedures for authorizing and 

processing customer credit for the returned material. Ms. Hilert indicated that there are several 

issues to be resolved prior to staffing. Specifically, more detailed procedures are needed for the 

establishment of the PMRD, to include who will prepare. In addition, there is a question as to 

SDRs applicability to this new process. Currently there is no system method to identify a 

BRAC return within the SDR transaction. Ms. Hilert further indicated that the PDC cannot be 

staffed until it addresses MILSBILLS revisions. ACTION: DLA provide answers to questions 

previously outlined in the PDC, to include the MILSBILLS, PMRD and SDR process. 

 (8) PDC 318, Notice of Availability (NOA) and NOA Reply 

Transaction Data Content/Mapping including Addition of Type Pack Code for 463L 

Pallets. This PDC which is out for staffing resolves a DLMS/MILS conversion issue between 

the MILSTRIP AD5 and the comparable DLMS 870N, Notice of Availability (NOA) Reply. It 

also modifies the location of the Type Pack Code in the DS 856N, NOA; updates MILSTRIP 

Appendix 3.30 to correctly identify the authorized data source for valid DoD Type Pack Codes; 

Updates the Type Pack Code Conversion Guide to add a new type pack code for 463L pallet and 

its applicable X12 conversion code.. The PDC also attempts to clarify identification of the 

“from” and “to” parties in NOA transaction formats, allowing for a future DLMS enhancement 

for identification of the country representative (CR) (specifically needed if automated NOAs are 

to be used for classified shipments) During the discussion, DLMSO repeated the guidance 

specifying an NOA/NOA reply is required for classified shipments. Ms. Hilert had requested 

that Components responding to the PDC provide feedback on how NOAs are communicated 

with the CR and how this could be done using transaction exchange. DAASC provided insight 

regarding current usage and potential for conversion of DLMS transactions for communication 

via DAASC Automated Message Exchange System (DAMES) or DAASC Integrated E-Mail 

Logistics System (DIELOG) accounts. DAASC promised to research further. Expanded use of 

automated NOAs to freight forwarders would reduce manual fax/email communication and 

provide a better audit trail. Since the DIELOG is similar to email and can be generated from the 

NOA transaction prepared by DSS, this seemed worth pursuing. Subsequent to the meeting: 

DAASC verified that Germany is still the only country that receives mechanized NOAs (using a 

DAMES account). Also, since there is currently only one country account, DAASC 

programming updates would be required to properly route to separate accounts for different 

countries. ACTION: SERVICE ILCOs are to evaluate expanded use of the mechanized NOA 
11

for additional countries and provide specific feedback on the potential use of the mechanized 

NOA for classified shipment communication with the CR as a future DLMS enhancement. 

 ( 9) PDC 325, Retail Transportation-Supply Receipt and 

Acknowledgement Requirements. Ms. Heidi Daverede, DLMSO, provided an overview and 

status of a new initiative to DLMS/MILS information exchange between retail Source of Supply 

(SOS) Automated Information Systems (AIS) and the retail Transportation Management Office 

AIS. PDC 325 outlines the changes required to implement the initiative. These changes includes 

the ability to pre-position release order data in transportation; submit follow-up status messages 

to transportation requesting updated shipment status; submit cancellation requests to 

transportation for release orders already turned over for shipment planning and execution; 

provide supply status messages from transportation to supply; provide cancellation response 

messages from transportation to supply; and submit material release confirmation messages from 

transportation to supply when the material has shipped. At present, there are five systems that 

are planning to use this standardized interchange; the Defense Medical Logistics Standard 

Support (DMLSS), Global Combat Support System – Marine Corps (GCSS-MC), Standard Base 

Supply System (SBSS) and Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS) systems represent 

the supply systems for their respective business areas and the Cargo Movement Operations 

System (CMOS) represents the transportation system. Systems other than these planning to use 

these standardized interchange transactions to implement a similar capability must coordinate 

with DLMSO and the United States Transportation Command prior to attempting to implement 

the interchange. Ms. Daverede indicated that all Service transportation POCs have been briefed 

on this initiative. Ms. Hilert said that there is a potential impact on DAASC depending on the 

volume of transactions expected to occur with this new process. ACTION: All Components 

provide projected volume of transactions as a result of this initiative. 

 (10) Draft PDC 330, New DLMS Advice Code for use with DS 527R 

Response to Inquiry for Materiel Receipt and New Beginning Segment Action Code to 

Capture MILSTRAP DRB Functionality. This proposed change adds a new 

DLMS/MILSTRIP advice code for use with DS 527R. Advice codes were added to DS 527R to 

support one of the original DLMS enhancements. That enhancement provided DS 527R use of 

advice code with receipt transactions and with responses to inquiries for receipt status. An 

additional DS 527R use of advice Code when responding to an inquiry for receipt status was 

subsequently identified (for use when “Storage activity has no receipt in process but there is a 

Prepositioned Materiel Receipt (PMR) file”), however an advice code was never assigned due to 

limited code availability at that time. Advice codes have since become available for use. In 

addition, this change adds a DS 527R beginning segment action code to capture MILSTRAP 

Document Identifier Code DRB functionality for MRA sent in response to an Inquiry for a 

Delinquent MRA. [Subsequent to the meeting, PDC 330 was released for staffing on November 

6, 2008 with responses due December 8, 2008.] 

_____/signed_________ Approved: _____/signed/__________ 

ELLEN HILERT DONALD C. PIPP 

Supply PRC Chair Director 

 Defense Logistics Management 

 Standards Office